14 ms·

We need to end the lock downs. It's time we did what we should have done after two weeks of quarantine: open back up, encourage social distancing, sanitation,

We need to end the lock downs. It's time we did what we should have done after two weeks of quarantine: open back up, encourage social distancing, sanitation, masks, temperature checks, and encourage the very old and ill to self-isolate (with financial help if needed).

gootdude 6y ago
Even before Covid-19, our health care system doesn't really provide much for these folks. Additionally, seeing all the failures of getting money to small businesses during this crisis and all the deaths in nursing homes, I find it hard to believe we'd effectively care for these people as they are isolated at home.
christophilus 6y ago
Shh. You're not allowed to think that. In all seriousness, I've been really disappointed with people who I respect who have consistently belittled anyone who questions the prudence of the lockdown. "Covidiot" is thrown around indiscriminately. The other thing that has surprised me is how many people use absolute numbers rather than per-capita numbers in order to prove their points. I even found Neil deGrasse Tyson doing this on Twitter.
- Skunkleton 6y ago
  Per-capita and absolute numbers are both incorrect. What matters is local concentrations. For example, If all of cases were contained to a few metro areas then there would be no problem outside those areas. This would not be reflected in per-capita numbers.
- asveikau 6y ago
  Well, a lot of people feel, I think accurately, that the lockdowns are what are or were keeping the case load relatively low. Regarding absolute numbers, in the early phase when we had a 2-3 day doubling rate, per capita numbers didn't matter very much because you only needed ~2 days for it to double, so any difference in per capita cases saw that gap closed pretty quickly. So for instance, I saw people downplaying the danger by saying "sure Italy has it bad, but the US has 5x the population". That missed the point a bit. It didn't take that long for the US to become the leader in absolute number of cases, then a bit more for it to exceed per capita rates of Italy. Probably both would have happened sooner had there not been any intervention.
  - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
    Sure, but certainly it's a complex enough scenario with enough variables that we should be able to at least have a conversation around what to do without resorting to name calling, yes?
    - Spellman 6y ago
      Sure, and many are. Economists, Epidemiologist, and many in the science and political communities are having these conversations. It's just that opening the economy has also become politicized and the armchair social media "experts" have begun chanting "OPEN UP!" without any sort of nuance repeatedly multiple times a day and overwhelming the conversations and suggestions of the reasonable folks with data. So, by default, the initial reaction is assume someone making that suggestion is they're more likely to be an emotional appeal than a rational discussion partner.
      - joshuahughes 6y ago
        > without any sort of nuance I think this accusation is equally applicable for politicians though. There has been precious little nuance in blanket lockdowns that don’t acknowledge how vastly different in risk different activities are (e.g. sunbathing in a park vs clubbing). Seems to me like the shouts of “OPEN UP!” are simply a response to the knee-jerk “SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!” that everyone has had to live with for the last few months.
        arrosenberg 6y ago
        Except it's not "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING". It's shut down all non-essential mass gatherings until we can get a handle on the situation. All of the governors who implemented strict shelter-in-place orders have also released detailed plans for re-opening safely.
        joshuahughes 6y ago
        Where I am (Scotland) it WAS pretty much everything. Only shops selling food, medicine, or maintenance products are allowed to open. All others have been shut for ~2 months now. Driving is strictly forbidden unless you’re travelling to one of these stores that have been ‘deemed essential’. We’re not allowed to meet anyone outside of our household, even in a socially-distanced outside context. I have friends unlucky enough to be living alone and single, and the lockdown is destroying them, to the point that they’re secretly meeting other single friends to stay sane. All of this is in spite of the fact that there are thousands of jobs and activities that can be EASILY done whilst also socially distancing. Of course, it requires vastly more thought and effort to come up with rational guidelines that take into consideration all of this nuance, and governments (mostly because of shortsightedness) haven’t had the time to create more humane lockdown solutions, hence the indiscriminate restrictions that have been brought in by countries the world over.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  I was against starting the long term lockdown. I would think they would have mobilized field hospitals care at a national scale as a long term solution, since they say most people will get it no matter what. Absolute numbers are important,those are facts. This isn't a routine disease society has accepted,it can be contained and prevented,per capita does not help guage resource needs. But if you do start a lockdown you can't half-ass it because that would literally be the worst option. The markets are ok because the shutdown is intentional. The markets would not be ok if spending and revenue loss was a result of people being fearful and panicky.the goal know should be a smooth and quick recovery at the right time, not a rough,rushed and messy one.
- travisporter 6y ago
  No need to compartmentalise. People’s thoughts, sentiments and opinions change (sometimes) based on facts. You’re not belittling this person but you are poking fun the community by saying that it would not accept this opinion.
- _jal 6y ago
  I'm tired of people pretending they're only "asking questions" when they're pushing for a full reopen. Acting like you're surprised there are unreasonable people saying things and using that to cast anyone who is more cautious as the same is dishonest and cowardly. If someone actually has questions, they should ask them. Otherwise if they don't have the courage to own their political position, I don't consider them part of the conversation.
  - Spellman 6y ago
    This has to be one of my most-hated "tricks." "I don't believe this long video I just posted. But it does make you think." No, I'm pretty sure you believe and are promoting said video. "I'm just asking questions here." No, you clearly have an agenda and opinion and want to bait others who are unsure into a discussion with you. For the rare folks with honest questions, we can have a real explanation. For honest people who want to discuss, we can have a discussion. But being coy and "asking" when you already have a position you won't actually change seems extremely disingenuous.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Locking down is the only current viable tactic the US has against C-19. We have: - terrible testing coverage - no contact tracing - massively inefficient healthcare system - massively inefficient supply lines for masks and gloves - insufficient social programs to support the unemployed Either we lock down, mitigate the effects of our already broken systems, or open up and accept that we will be killing citizens under "acceptable losses"
save_ferris 6y ago
The problem with this strategy is that most restaurants cannot survive on reduced capacity or economic participation by the public. A huge percentage of people aren’t going to patronize restaurants until a vaccine is found, and if things open back up and people don’t show, we’re going to have a very different economic problem on our hands.
- ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
  > "The problem with this strategy is that most restaurants cannot survive on reduced capacity or economic participation by the public." No shit, but 100% of restaurants would fail with zero capacity. A partial open is better than nothing. > "and if things open back up and people don’t show, we’re going to have a very different economic problem on our hands." What would that be?
  - option_greek 6y ago
    Change in long term behavioural patterns.
    - ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
      That's may be causing an economic problem, but it isn't the problem itself.
vkou 6y ago
Do you think people would be more or less inclined to go to restaurants if the epidemic goes back to out of control exponential? [1] South Korea recently reopened bars and clubs, and just shut them down again, because masks and voluntary social distancing aren't enough for this virus. Do you think Americans are more, less, or equally capable of voluntary compliance to this sort of thing than Koreans? [1] I'm comfortable enough to order takeout at the moment. If we go back to exponential spread, I'm going right back to bunkering down, and not spending a single dollar on anything but groceries.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  It sure seems like the majority of the lockdown effect has been voluntary, across the world. Except for places where the police are actively beating people who refuse to comply, of course. I think it's likely that we could throw open the entire US and it wouldn't fundamentally change much, aside from an initial surge. As soon as the death count started to climb steeply again, people would voluntarily go right back indoors and stay there.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > I think it's likely that we could throw open the entire US and it wouldn't fundamentally change much, aside from an initial surge. What makes you think that the initial surge will stop? The reason the initial surge in March stopped was because we closed everything down. What mechanism is going to stop the surge from lifting lockdown? What has changed since March, and why is it enough to bring R to 1? Why didn't South Korea think the same way that you did, and just decided to let infections surge, and see if they stop on their own?
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      > What makes you think that the initial surge will stop? Same as the first -- voluntary social distancing. I think you missed my point, which is that I don't believe the government is really in control, at least not in western democracies. I think people are choosing for themselves to isolate, and I think they will continue to adjust that decision based on their perceived risk. I think there would be a surge at first because there is some pent up demand for things people feel like they need, or they really want to do and they don't perceive a strong risk. So these people would cause a surge, it would hit the news, and most people would then panic themselves right back indoors, then a month or so later we'd do it all again. Someone released a study a few days ago suggesting that if we could actually achieve nearly universal compliance with mask wearing in public indoor spaces (I think they said 80%) then a slight improvement over our current masks (better than the homemade cloth or disposable surgical masks, not necessarily N95 level though), we could push R0 below 1.0 without really doing anything else different from normal everyday activities. I don't think we can expect that compliance rate, though.
eggsnbacon1 6y ago
Our lockdowns were so badly done they didn't even decrease the daily case count. In Korea and many other places, they ended lockdowns after a few months because cases dropped orders of magnitude. In the US, we're "opening back up" while many states are hitting daily records. Our lockdowns were a disaster and "opening back up" is going to cause an explosion in cases. If our lockdowns had been done right we would be able to reopen the economy now with little risk
- aguyfromnb 6y ago
  >Our lockdowns were so badly done they didn't even decrease the daily case count. Is it any wonder? Look at the comments here. Look at guys like Elon Musk breaking quarantine for economic reasons and getting praised for it. Conspiracies abound. This didn't happen in less partisan countries. Like absolutely everything else in the US, the lockdown became a political issue, for and against it. Where I'm from, everyone took it seriously and in a matter of weeks we got down to ZERO active cases. Then again, we don't hate people who have different politics.
  - eggsnbacon1 6y ago
    its not just political. The rich and powerful have too much influence. Countries with high income equality are the ones with successful lockdowns. When your president is one of the richest men in the world its hard to convince leadership to shut down the economy. And the US is pretty much unique with the whole "corporation is a person" nonsense
- zdragnar 6y ago
  Lockdowns were not meant to stop people from getting sick, they were meant to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. NYC is about the only hospital system that came close to being overwhelmed and even they made almost no use of the temporary hospitals. The record numbers of cases we see now coincides with record levels of testing- with such limited availability of testing prior to the lockdown, the majority of cases- those not needing hospitalization- were never counted.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 6y ago
This is sort of where I've ended up as well. Many other countries have taken incremental reopening steps already. Some states have as well, and despite it being over 2 weeks, there hasn't been a spike in cases in those areas yet (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/so-far-no-spike-in-coronavirus-in-places-reopening-us-health-secretary-says-idUSKBN22T0HN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/so...). Some countries also never issued a strict shelter in place order in the first place. And I don't mean just Sweden. For example, per IHME data, none of the Scandanavian countries ever issued orders that met their definition for a "stay at home" order. There is no avoiding reopening. General availability of vaccines will take a very long time, simply because manufacturing 1 billion of anything is nontrivial. It is simply not feasible to ask people to put aside their personal lives and business for 18-24 months. We can do so reasonably safely with clear common sense guidance, without vacillation on the effectiveness of masks or distance or precautions. In the least we need to stop issuing blanket orders that apply over broad geographies like entire states. The risks are different for different people and different circumstances. For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business. I am very much in favor of individuals assessing the risks to themselves in choosing which activities they participate in. From https://reason.com/2020/04/15/people-not-politicians-will-decide-when-the-coronavirus-shutdown-ends/ https://reason.com/2020/04/15/people-not-politicians-will-de...: > Who has the best information to weigh these risks, the costs and benefits of each trip out versus staying home? Not a governor or a president, but an individual. Different people may have different tolerances for risk. For some people that trip to a restaurant or a place of worship may be a risk worth taking. For others it is not. For sure, each individual decision can affect other people—one person who takes too much risk and gets sick means one fewer hospital slot available for someone else. But that is true in many areas of American life, and it hasn't until now caused the country or states to be locked down.
- VectorLock 6y ago
  >For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business. Those people, unfortunately, are still able to spread to those who do have a much hight mortality rate.
zeku 6y ago
You're missing a couple KEY points that we NEED. We NEED contact tracing so we can dynamically quarantine. We NEED enforcement of the new rules(6ft, masks) because they're not being followed where I'm at. We NEED financial support for those who are immuno compromised or those who have to take care of the immuno compromised.
- falcolas 6y ago
  We also need testing to know when people are actually healthy, and not healthy-looking.
  - blhack 6y ago
    Where are you that testing is still a problem? At least here in AZ there is no wait to get any sort of test, and actually doctors are now just including them in the standard blood panels they do.
    - travisporter 6y ago
      I still can’t buy a thermometer online.
      - blhack 6y ago
        Here: https://wyze.com/thermometer.html https://wyze.com/thermometer.html I have one of these and have sanity checked it against another mouth thermometer I have from CVS and the readings agree with one another. (There have been reports of Chinese-made thermometers lying about their readings) Looks like there are also a bunch on amazon that will arrive to me anywhere between two days from now and a week from now.
    - ogn3rd 6y ago
      |At least here in AZ there is no wait to get any sort of test False. People in AZ are waiting in their cars for hours to get tested.
badrabbit 6y ago
Why did't anyone schedule quarantines,like you would be allowed to drive or enter a business during certain times of the day of certain days. Using things like drivers license or license plate numbering,immune system vulnerability and other factors. Especially when lifting the lockdown, I would have lifted lockdowns strictly for people who have no violations during the lock down. And prioritize scheduling based on age and medical exceptions. Maybe have hours of the day strictly for vulnerable people with hard restrictions and a separate time for people that have already recovered.
- VectorLock 6y ago
  It seemed to me this was a great idea that never materialized beyond "old folks get to use the grocery store exclusively before 11am." If I could schedule an hour at a grocery store, or Home Depot, a few days before, rather than having to stand in a 6 foot spaced line that extenders literally around the building. Curb side pickup is nice, but its really just a worse Amazon. This seems like a missed opportunity for a "service" business that everybody seems to be clamoring for.
spike021 6y ago
>encourage social distancing, sanitation, masks We're still in quarantine in the Bay Area and I'm seeing _more_ people not wearing masks or social distancing. The next thing people need to hear is "quarantine is over" when they're associating quarantine with COVID still being "around." Once that happens, it's game over; I think a majority of people will just go back to normal without being careful. Not that I don't want quarantine over but I just don't think most people understand the message it would send.
DyingAdonis 6y ago
If a medically-informed response to a pandemic creates economic hardship so serious that the impacts are more deadly than the virus, then you change your economic system, not your response to disease.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  You mean change the entire world's economic systems? Who had a real lockdown and has upward economic indicators as a result? Even Germany isn't spared. China certainly isn't. There's a level of interdependence here as well - if consumption (goods or tourism or take-your-pick) in one country shuts down, another country can be heavily hit and layoffs result. But all that aside, what's the bullet-proof economic system that 300 years of economic philosophy and experience has missed that would help here?
efficax 6y ago
Without a real testing regime in place ending the lockdown just means turning on the death switch
analog31 6y ago
So, we've had "encouragement" since the pandemic began, at least from state and local leaders. The very old and ill were already largely self-isolated with the exception of their caretakers, who they still need. That experiment ended sometime in March, though it's still playing out in nursing homes. We've known about masks and temperature checks since the beginning of the pandemic, and every reasonable scenario requires them. We can check on the progress of thermometer production and mask availability. I have a hunch that developing the capacity to implement your proposal will give us enough time -- a few months at least -- to see how voluntary self isolation is working in the regions that are already ending the lock down.
didibus 6y ago
I am neither in favour of or against the lockdown. I consider myself ill-equipped to make this decision. I do not have the data, not the know-how. I hope that I can trust the people who have passed the job interviews in our institutions and have been elected to do their job properly or at least better then what I can do without know how or data. So for every person who puts forth their strategy I get curious, why? So here's a few questions to you. Can you explain your position? Can you tell me your social context, what state and city are you in? What is the opinion of your friends and family? Did you weigh the numbers for predicted economic impact and predicted deaths and health issues and contrast them? Did you consider factors such as that even pre-lockdown the economy was slowing and restaurants closing because a lot of consumers voluntarily avoided putting themselves at risk? Without you putting any answers to these, or specifying your qualifications, the amount of time you spent thinking about the problem, the edge cases, etc. I can't trust your judgement anymore then I'd trust a coin flip.
mrlala 6y ago
>It's time we did what we should have done after two weeks of quarantine You seem to know better than the experts.. not sure what qualifies you to believe that.

gootdude 6y ago

Even before Covid-19, our health care system doesn't really provide much for these folks. Additionally, seeing all the failures of getting money to small businesses during this crisis and all the deaths in nursing homes, I find it hard to believe we'd effectively care for these people as they are isolated at home.

christophilus 6y ago

Shh. You're not allowed to think that. In all seriousness, I've been really disappointed with people who I respect who have consistently belittled anyone who questions the prudence of the lockdown. "Covidiot" is thrown around indiscriminately. The other thing that has surprised me is how many people use absolute numbers rather than per-capita numbers in order to prove their points. I even found Neil deGrasse Tyson doing this on Twitter.

Skunkleton 6y ago
Per-capita and absolute numbers are both incorrect. What matters is local concentrations. For example, If all of cases were contained to a few metro areas then there would be no problem outside those areas. This would not be reflected in per-capita numbers.
asveikau 6y ago
Well, a lot of people feel, I think accurately, that the lockdowns are what are or were keeping the case load relatively low. Regarding absolute numbers, in the early phase when we had a 2-3 day doubling rate, per capita numbers didn't matter very much because you only needed ~2 days for it to double, so any difference in per capita cases saw that gap closed pretty quickly. So for instance, I saw people downplaying the danger by saying "sure Italy has it bad, but the US has 5x the population". That missed the point a bit. It didn't take that long for the US to become the leader in absolute number of cases, then a bit more for it to exceed per capita rates of Italy. Probably both would have happened sooner had there not been any intervention.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Sure, but certainly it's a complex enough scenario with enough variables that we should be able to at least have a conversation around what to do without resorting to name calling, yes?
  - Spellman 6y ago
    Sure, and many are. Economists, Epidemiologist, and many in the science and political communities are having these conversations. It's just that opening the economy has also become politicized and the armchair social media "experts" have begun chanting "OPEN UP!" without any sort of nuance repeatedly multiple times a day and overwhelming the conversations and suggestions of the reasonable folks with data. So, by default, the initial reaction is assume someone making that suggestion is they're more likely to be an emotional appeal than a rational discussion partner.
    - joshuahughes 6y ago
      > without any sort of nuance I think this accusation is equally applicable for politicians though. There has been precious little nuance in blanket lockdowns that don’t acknowledge how vastly different in risk different activities are (e.g. sunbathing in a park vs clubbing). Seems to me like the shouts of “OPEN UP!” are simply a response to the knee-jerk “SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!” that everyone has had to live with for the last few months.
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        Except it's not "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING". It's shut down all non-essential mass gatherings until we can get a handle on the situation. All of the governors who implemented strict shelter-in-place orders have also released detailed plans for re-opening safely.
        joshuahughes 6y ago
        Where I am (Scotland) it WAS pretty much everything. Only shops selling food, medicine, or maintenance products are allowed to open. All others have been shut for ~2 months now. Driving is strictly forbidden unless you’re travelling to one of these stores that have been ‘deemed essential’. We’re not allowed to meet anyone outside of our household, even in a socially-distanced outside context. I have friends unlucky enough to be living alone and single, and the lockdown is destroying them, to the point that they’re secretly meeting other single friends to stay sane. All of this is in spite of the fact that there are thousands of jobs and activities that can be EASILY done whilst also socially distancing. Of course, it requires vastly more thought and effort to come up with rational guidelines that take into consideration all of this nuance, and governments (mostly because of shortsightedness) haven’t had the time to create more humane lockdown solutions, hence the indiscriminate restrictions that have been brought in by countries the world over.
badrabbit 6y ago
I was against starting the long term lockdown. I would think they would have mobilized field hospitals care at a national scale as a long term solution, since they say most people will get it no matter what. Absolute numbers are important,those are facts. This isn't a routine disease society has accepted,it can be contained and prevented,per capita does not help guage resource needs. But if you do start a lockdown you can't half-ass it because that would literally be the worst option. The markets are ok because the shutdown is intentional. The markets would not be ok if spending and revenue loss was a result of people being fearful and panicky.the goal know should be a smooth and quick recovery at the right time, not a rough,rushed and messy one.
travisporter 6y ago
No need to compartmentalise. People’s thoughts, sentiments and opinions change (sometimes) based on facts. You’re not belittling this person but you are poking fun the community by saying that it would not accept this opinion.
_jal 6y ago
I'm tired of people pretending they're only "asking questions" when they're pushing for a full reopen. Acting like you're surprised there are unreasonable people saying things and using that to cast anyone who is more cautious as the same is dishonest and cowardly. If someone actually has questions, they should ask them. Otherwise if they don't have the courage to own their political position, I don't consider them part of the conversation.
- Spellman 6y ago
  This has to be one of my most-hated "tricks." "I don't believe this long video I just posted. But it does make you think." No, I'm pretty sure you believe and are promoting said video. "I'm just asking questions here." No, you clearly have an agenda and opinion and want to bait others who are unsure into a discussion with you. For the rare folks with honest questions, we can have a real explanation. For honest people who want to discuss, we can have a discussion. But being coy and "asking" when you already have a position you won't actually change seems extremely disingenuous.
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
Locking down is the only current viable tactic the US has against C-19. We have: - terrible testing coverage - no contact tracing - massively inefficient healthcare system - massively inefficient supply lines for masks and gloves - insufficient social programs to support the unemployed Either we lock down, mitigate the effects of our already broken systems, or open up and accept that we will be killing citizens under "acceptable losses"

save_ferris 6y ago

The problem with this strategy is that most restaurants cannot survive on reduced capacity or economic participation by the public. A huge percentage of people aren’t going to patronize restaurants until a vaccine is found, and if things open back up and people don’t show, we’re going to have a very different economic problem on our hands.

ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
> "The problem with this strategy is that most restaurants cannot survive on reduced capacity or economic participation by the public." No shit, but 100% of restaurants would fail with zero capacity. A partial open is better than nothing. > "and if things open back up and people don’t show, we’re going to have a very different economic problem on our hands." What would that be?
- option_greek 6y ago
  Change in long term behavioural patterns.
  - ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
    That's may be causing an economic problem, but it isn't the problem itself.

vkou 6y ago

Do you think people would be more or less inclined to go to restaurants if the epidemic goes back to out of control exponential? [1] South Korea recently reopened bars and clubs, and just shut them down again, because masks and voluntary social distancing aren't enough for this virus. Do you think Americans are more, less, or equally capable of voluntary compliance to this sort of thing than Koreans? [1] I'm comfortable enough to order takeout at the moment. If we go back to exponential spread, I'm going right back to bunkering down, and not spending a single dollar on anything but groceries.

rootusrootus 6y ago
It sure seems like the majority of the lockdown effect has been voluntary, across the world. Except for places where the police are actively beating people who refuse to comply, of course. I think it's likely that we could throw open the entire US and it wouldn't fundamentally change much, aside from an initial surge. As soon as the death count started to climb steeply again, people would voluntarily go right back indoors and stay there.
- vkou 6y ago
  > I think it's likely that we could throw open the entire US and it wouldn't fundamentally change much, aside from an initial surge. What makes you think that the initial surge will stop? The reason the initial surge in March stopped was because we closed everything down. What mechanism is going to stop the surge from lifting lockdown? What has changed since March, and why is it enough to bring R to 1? Why didn't South Korea think the same way that you did, and just decided to let infections surge, and see if they stop on their own?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > What makes you think that the initial surge will stop? Same as the first -- voluntary social distancing. I think you missed my point, which is that I don't believe the government is really in control, at least not in western democracies. I think people are choosing for themselves to isolate, and I think they will continue to adjust that decision based on their perceived risk. I think there would be a surge at first because there is some pent up demand for things people feel like they need, or they really want to do and they don't perceive a strong risk. So these people would cause a surge, it would hit the news, and most people would then panic themselves right back indoors, then a month or so later we'd do it all again. Someone released a study a few days ago suggesting that if we could actually achieve nearly universal compliance with mask wearing in public indoor spaces (I think they said 80%) then a slight improvement over our current masks (better than the homemade cloth or disposable surgical masks, not necessarily N95 level though), we could push R0 below 1.0 without really doing anything else different from normal everyday activities. I don't think we can expect that compliance rate, though.

eggsnbacon1 6y ago

Our lockdowns were so badly done they didn't even decrease the daily case count. In Korea and many other places, they ended lockdowns after a few months because cases dropped orders of magnitude. In the US, we're "opening back up" while many states are hitting daily records. Our lockdowns were a disaster and "opening back up" is going to cause an explosion in cases. If our lockdowns had been done right we would be able to reopen the economy now with little risk

aguyfromnb 6y ago
>Our lockdowns were so badly done they didn't even decrease the daily case count. Is it any wonder? Look at the comments here. Look at guys like Elon Musk breaking quarantine for economic reasons and getting praised for it. Conspiracies abound. This didn't happen in less partisan countries. Like absolutely everything else in the US, the lockdown became a political issue, for and against it. Where I'm from, everyone took it seriously and in a matter of weeks we got down to ZERO active cases. Then again, we don't hate people who have different politics.
- eggsnbacon1 6y ago
  its not just political. The rich and powerful have too much influence. Countries with high income equality are the ones with successful lockdowns. When your president is one of the richest men in the world its hard to convince leadership to shut down the economy. And the US is pretty much unique with the whole "corporation is a person" nonsense
zdragnar 6y ago
Lockdowns were not meant to stop people from getting sick, they were meant to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. NYC is about the only hospital system that came close to being overwhelmed and even they made almost no use of the temporary hospitals. The record numbers of cases we see now coincides with record levels of testing- with such limited availability of testing prior to the lockdown, the majority of cases- those not needing hospitalization- were never counted.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwawaysea 6y ago

This is sort of where I've ended up as well. Many other countries have taken incremental reopening steps already. Some states have as well, and despite it being over 2 weeks, there hasn't been a spike in cases in those areas yet (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/so-far-no-spike-in-coronavirus-in-places-reopening-us-health-secretary-says-idUSKBN22T0HN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/so...). Some countries also never issued a strict shelter in place order in the first place. And I don't mean just Sweden. For example, per IHME data, none of the Scandanavian countries ever issued orders that met their definition for a "stay at home" order. There is no avoiding reopening. General availability of vaccines will take a very long time, simply because manufacturing 1 billion of anything is nontrivial. It is simply not feasible to ask people to put aside their personal lives and business for 18-24 months. We can do so reasonably safely with clear common sense guidance, without vacillation on the effectiveness of masks or distance or precautions. In the least we need to stop issuing blanket orders that apply over broad geographies like entire states. The risks are different for different people and different circumstances. For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business. I am very much in favor of individuals assessing the risks to themselves in choosing which activities they participate in. From https://reason.com/2020/04/15/people-not-politicians-will-decide-when-the-coronavirus-shutdown-ends/ https://reason.com/2020/04/15/people-not-politicians-will-de...: > Who has the best information to weigh these risks, the costs and benefits of each trip out versus staying home? Not a governor or a president, but an individual. Different people may have different tolerances for risk. For some people that trip to a restaurant or a place of worship may be a risk worth taking. For others it is not. For sure, each individual decision can affect other people—one person who takes too much risk and gets sick means one fewer hospital slot available for someone else. But that is true in many areas of American life, and it hasn't until now caused the country or states to be locked down.

VectorLock 6y ago
>For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business. Those people, unfortunately, are still able to spread to those who do have a much hight mortality rate.

zeku 6y ago

You're missing a couple KEY points that we NEED. We NEED contact tracing so we can dynamically quarantine. We NEED enforcement of the new rules(6ft, masks) because they're not being followed where I'm at. We NEED financial support for those who are immuno compromised or those who have to take care of the immuno compromised.

falcolas 6y ago
We also need testing to know when people are actually healthy, and not healthy-looking.
- blhack 6y ago
  Where are you that testing is still a problem? At least here in AZ there is no wait to get any sort of test, and actually doctors are now just including them in the standard blood panels they do.
  - travisporter 6y ago
    I still can’t buy a thermometer online.
    - blhack 6y ago
      Here: https://wyze.com/thermometer.html https://wyze.com/thermometer.html I have one of these and have sanity checked it against another mouth thermometer I have from CVS and the readings agree with one another. (There have been reports of Chinese-made thermometers lying about their readings) Looks like there are also a bunch on amazon that will arrive to me anywhere between two days from now and a week from now.
  - ogn3rd 6y ago
    |At least here in AZ there is no wait to get any sort of test False. People in AZ are waiting in their cars for hours to get tested.

badrabbit 6y ago

Why did't anyone schedule quarantines,like you would be allowed to drive or enter a business during certain times of the day of certain days. Using things like drivers license or license plate numbering,immune system vulnerability and other factors. Especially when lifting the lockdown, I would have lifted lockdowns strictly for people who have no violations during the lock down. And prioritize scheduling based on age and medical exceptions. Maybe have hours of the day strictly for vulnerable people with hard restrictions and a separate time for people that have already recovered.

VectorLock 6y ago
It seemed to me this was a great idea that never materialized beyond "old folks get to use the grocery store exclusively before 11am." If I could schedule an hour at a grocery store, or Home Depot, a few days before, rather than having to stand in a 6 foot spaced line that extenders literally around the building. Curb side pickup is nice, but its really just a worse Amazon. This seems like a missed opportunity for a "service" business that everybody seems to be clamoring for.

spike021 6y ago

>encourage social distancing, sanitation, masks We're still in quarantine in the Bay Area and I'm seeing _more_ people not wearing masks or social distancing. The next thing people need to hear is "quarantine is over" when they're associating quarantine with COVID still being "around." Once that happens, it's game over; I think a majority of people will just go back to normal without being careful. Not that I don't want quarantine over but I just don't think most people understand the message it would send.

DyingAdonis 6y ago

If a medically-informed response to a pandemic creates economic hardship so serious that the impacts are more deadly than the virus, then you change your economic system, not your response to disease.

mancerayder 6y ago
You mean change the entire world's economic systems? Who had a real lockdown and has upward economic indicators as a result? Even Germany isn't spared. China certainly isn't. There's a level of interdependence here as well - if consumption (goods or tourism or take-your-pick) in one country shuts down, another country can be heavily hit and layoffs result. But all that aside, what's the bullet-proof economic system that 300 years of economic philosophy and experience has missed that would help here?

efficax 6y ago

Without a real testing regime in place ending the lockdown just means turning on the death switch

analog31 6y ago

So, we've had "encouragement" since the pandemic began, at least from state and local leaders. The very old and ill were already largely self-isolated with the exception of their caretakers, who they still need. That experiment ended sometime in March, though it's still playing out in nursing homes. We've known about masks and temperature checks since the beginning of the pandemic, and every reasonable scenario requires them. We can check on the progress of thermometer production and mask availability. I have a hunch that developing the capacity to implement your proposal will give us enough time -- a few months at least -- to see how voluntary self isolation is working in the regions that are already ending the lock down.

didibus 6y ago

I am neither in favour of or against the lockdown. I consider myself ill-equipped to make this decision. I do not have the data, not the know-how. I hope that I can trust the people who have passed the job interviews in our institutions and have been elected to do their job properly or at least better then what I can do without know how or data. So for every person who puts forth their strategy I get curious, why? So here's a few questions to you. Can you explain your position? Can you tell me your social context, what state and city are you in? What is the opinion of your friends and family? Did you weigh the numbers for predicted economic impact and predicted deaths and health issues and contrast them? Did you consider factors such as that even pre-lockdown the economy was slowing and restaurants closing because a lot of consumers voluntarily avoided putting themselves at risk? Without you putting any answers to these, or specifying your qualifications, the amount of time you spent thinking about the problem, the edge cases, etc. I can't trust your judgement anymore then I'd trust a coin flip.

mrlala 6y ago

>It's time we did what we should have done after two weeks of quarantine You seem to know better than the experts.. not sure what qualifies you to believe that.